Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39882757›Full record

SynthesisFuture cardiology2025

Comparative efficacy of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Muhammad Hamza Shuja, Syed Hasan Shuja, Fabeeha Shaheen, Ramish Hannat, Firzah Shakil, Abeera Farooq Abbasi, Minal Hasan

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Future cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Muhammad Hamza ShujaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Syed Hasan ShujaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Fabeeha ShaheenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
Ramish HannatDepartment of medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0000-1281-8588
Firzah ShakilDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Abeera Farooq AbbasiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Minal HasanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are essential for reducing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias. The choice of ICD lead - single-coil or dual-coil - can influence device performance and patient outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the comparative efficacy and safety of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads to inform clinical decision-making.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was performed up to October 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-coil and dual-coil ICD leads were included. Outcomes assessed included defibrillation threshold (DFT), first-shock efficacy, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, shock impedance, and peak current.

resultsSeven RCTs involving 1,614 patients were analyzed. Single-coil leads demonstrated superior first-shock efficacy (OR: 1.60;

conclusionsSingle-coil ICD leads are associated with improved first-shock efficacy and reduced all-cause mortality, suggesting their potential superiority in certain patient populations. Further research is warranted to refine lead selection criteria.

Indexed as

Arrhythmias, CardiacDeath, Sudden, CardiacDefibrillators, ImplantableElectric CountershockEquipment DesignHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomedefibrillationdual-coilImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatormortalitysingle-coil

Identifiers

PMID39882757
PMCPMC11875464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.